Talk:Constantine V/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 17:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• 48-manasses-chronicle.jpg needs a USPD tag.
• SoldiersGuardIgnatios.jpg needs a USPD tag.

Done

• Image caption: "Manasses Chronicle - 14th century manuscript" The hyphen should be a spaced en dash.

Don't know what that means - I have added hyphen to 14th-century and replaced previous hyphen with a comma

Thanks. Now MoS compliant.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I have made a couple of minor copy edits which you will want to check.

I am fairly sure that capitalisation of titles should be in the form 'King Richard' or 'the king'. Capitalisation is only where the title is directly associated with a proper noun. Will amend. I see that Wikipedia does not agree with this view - so I have reverted. It seems to be a grey area.

It seems clear to me. Which part seems grey?

Whether the use of a title in place of a proper noun requires capitalisation. "The Archdeacon must see this", or "The archdeacon must see this".

• It depends on whether the noun refers to a single, identifiable individual. So: "In the 14th century the king opened parliament"; "In June 1344 the King opened parliament".

• "the son and successor of Emperor Leo III and Maria" → '... and his wife, Maria.'

Done

• "Artabasdos struck against Constantine, when their respective" Delete the comma.

Done

• "was accepted and crowned emperor" I am not sure what "accepted" adds. (Or even means.)

Replaced with 'acclaimed'

• In the chronology "with Constantine V as co-emperor, 720–751" Should that be '720–741'?

Yes, the box was created by Cplakadis (Constantine), I think, I don't know how to access it for editing

Constantine has now amended it.

• "writing no less than thirteen treatises" seems MOS:VAGUE. Can I suggest 'writing thirteen treatises'.

Have changed wording

• "sending his own representatives to argue his case" Suggest deleting "own".

Deleted "his own"

• "(culminating in 766)" begs a question. How or in what way did it culminate?

Deleted

• "in which the mob took active delight" Again seems MOS:VAGUE. Can I suggest deleting "active".

I would defend 'active' as we know that Byzantine mobs were very physical, hence the Modern Greek 'moutza' gesture, deriving from the mob smearing their victims with unpleasant matter, and the evidence of the casual torture of Andronikos I as he was paraded through Constantinople.

Hmm. OK.

• "Iconoclasm was not purely an imperial heresy" Suggest "heresy" → 'policy'.

It wasn't a definite 'heresy' at the time, but, although it had a political dimension, is was at heart religious - I would prefer 'religious conviction'

OK.

• "may have been motivated by a desire to retain the approval of the people" 'and the army'?

Done

• "largely ornamental guard units" Suggest "ornamental" → 'ceremonial'.

Done

• "This force [singular] was designed to form the core of field armies [plural]" This is unclear to me.

Well, if the emperor was campaigning in the east he would probably have a field army consisting of the tagmata plus mainly the Armeniac and Anatolic thematic troops, if campaigning in the Balkans then the army would probably consist of the tagmata plus mostly the Thracian, Opsikian, Bukkelarian and Thrakesian thematic troops. Two different field armies, both with a core of the tagmata.

OK, understood.

• "Constantine constructed a number of notable buildings in the Great Palace of Constantinople including the Church of the Virgin of the Pharos and the porphyra." This implies that theporphyra was one of the notable buildings, which it wasn't. Could you rephrase.

I would defend the importance/notability of the porphyra. It wasn't a large building but its political importance in guaranteeing the legitimacy of imperial children was immense. The Stone of Scone is a small and nondescript piece of rock, nowhere near the size of a megalith, but it has huge notability.

Agreed. It definitely needs including. My question is: was the porphyra a building or a room? The current text suggests that it was a building; I had understood that it was a room - I may well be wrong.

It seems to have been both, see: [1]. According to Harris it was a building consisting of one room. As the Great Palace, like the Topkapi, was a essentially collection of pavilions set on terraces this makes sense.

News to me, but fair enough; and I am now better informed.

• "It was employed for the birth of the children" I know what you mean, but it seems a little clumsy. Can you think of a more informative way of phrasing this?

The 'accouchement of pregnant empresses' would be better and more accurate, but less understandable - have changed the wording, though it is now more 'wordy'

True. I am happy to consider alternatives, but it currently seems to be a good compromise between conciseness and explanation.

• "but gave his younger sons the titles of caesar and nobelissimos" Was this the case? Or do you mean 'but gave his younger sons the titles of either caesar or nobelissimos'?

Changed

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Again I have made a couple of copy edits. Again, flag up anything you are not happy with.

• "invaded Syria and captured Germanikeia (modern Marash, his father's birthplace), and recaptured Cyprus" Umm. How about '; the island of Cyprus was also recaptured.'?

Done, sort of

• "He retired to Bythinia to avoid the disease" "He" → 'Constantine'.

Done

• After first mention, could you change mentions of "Constantine V' to 'Constantine'.

Done, except at the start of the 'Assement' section, where it seems appropriate.

Good point.

• "An objective analysis" Calling an analysis "objective" seems PoV to me. Can you source the use of the word?

I have amended it - but it is more wordy again

True. Ho hum. I think that it needs to be. Or something along the lines of 'Modern analyses of Constantine's life indicate that ... ' perhaps?

I have attempted another rewording, avoiding the word 'analysis', it might work

Also, just checking, given the three sources, would it be more accurate to say 'analyses' rather than

Looks like a fine, solid piece of work to me. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I unearthed more additional material than I thought was out there.

It is certainly a more impressive piece of work now than it was when you first nominated it. Nearly there.

• When an article is contained within a book or journal, the name of the article should be within quote marks " ", not in italics; eg see Barnard, Constas, etc.

Done

• 13 figure ISBNs should be consistent. Ie, either always put a hyphen after the first 978, or never do.

Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I am going to pass this, but could you sort out the ISBN for Freely and Cakmak, which is inconsistent with your other 10 figure ISBNs. Thanks.

Changed this and the Fine ISBN which was also in an alternate format

Well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is comprehensive, neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated appropriately. Passing. Great work!

Thanks a lot, my horizons were limited by the cursory treatment in Ostrogorsky and other generalist books, but there was wealth of information out there in more specialist publications, which surprised me considerably. Urselius (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed